What context are you using to determine the meaning of the passages?
Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 17:26-27 identify the victims of the flood as
"they", which does not seem very helpful in determining the extent. Luke
17:28-29 gives apparently identical wording with regard to the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was clearly not global. The context is
emphasizing the unexpected nature of the second coming, so I do not see
them as very helpful in establishing the extent of the events. I Pet. 4:20
talks about how few were saved, suggesting that the others were not, but
does not say anything about the extent. II Pet. 2:5 refers to the world of
the ungodly, which, as previously noted, has been taken as constraining the
flood to be regional since before the acceptance of evolutionary ideas.
Arguing that the words within Gen. 6-9 are global is arguing circularly.
Moses elsewhere uses the same words in a non-global sense, so it is clear
that such an interpretation is linguistically credible. The immediate
context is more important than other usage in choosing which interpretation
is valid, but other contexts may be very helpful when there is question
about the immediate context.
The Flood could have drowned all humans not aboard the ark without being
global, if humans were confined to certain areas.
It is impossible to approach the Scripture alone, without external input.
Silla niin on Jumala maailmaa rakastanut, etta han antoi aionokaisen
Poikansa, ettei yksikaan, joka haneen uskoo, hukkuisi, vaan hanella olisi
iankaikkinen elama, plus appropriate accents, does not do me any good
unless I learn Finnish, but in a language I know it is very significant
(John 3:16.) Even in translation, many passages make no sense unless I
learn a bit about ancient cultures. Our experience with nature tells us
that Isaiah 55:12, with the trees clapping their hands, is a metaphor
because trees do not have hands. Likewise, our experience with nature
indicates that the axe head floating for Elisha was a miracle, because iron
does not float even when a stick is thrown into the same pool.
The available evidence from creation points to the Flood being regional or
local rather than global. Michael Tuomey, in his 1848 Report on the
Geology of South Carolina, had a section on the "Consistency of Modern
Geology with the Mosaic account of the Creation". He endorsed geology as
highly "worthy of the attention of the Christian student" because it shows
that "all save the Almighty had a beginning". He also declared that,
although in the past the formation of fossiliferous rocks had been
attributed to the Deluge, "no one, who has ever examined a fossiliferous
deposit for five minutes, can hold such an opinion." I have not yet
encountered a Flood Geology model that stands up to his objections, much
less more recent discoveries.
David C.